3 ms·
I take issue with this "real job" thing. A "real job" is something you do to get reliable income. More often than not, it implies working for someone else. "
by loup-vaillant 12y ago
I take issue with this "real job" thing.
A "real job" is something you do to get reliable income. More often than not, it implies working for someone else. "Real job" don't have to be interesting, fulfilling, or even productive. If yours is, great, but that is not their main function. Their main function is to get you to pay the bills.
Hence my issue with the qualifier: "real". "Real" implies something inherently good, or at least better than the alternative. It also implies the alternative isn't "real", meaning it has less or no value. Add enough confusion, and you get a moral imperative to work your ass off for a boss that doesn't care about you, instead of creating pieces of art.
This way of thinking would lead to a bleak world. We should say "real job" less often —if at all.
- Retra 12y agoIt is quite clearly a 'no true Scotsman'-type argument.
- loup-vaillant 12y agoWhat "it" refers to? My comment? Arguments based on "real jobs"? Something else?
- Retra 12y ago"Real jobs." If we can't value people who are chasing their dreams, then what is the point of working together as a society to accomplish things? If artists should be cogs in a machine somewhere, then what is the point that machine? It's absurd to suggest that people should get 'real jobs.' Life is a real job, and we've all already got it.